SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
https://edition.cnn.com/2020/06/19/tech/north-face-facebook-ads/index.html:
Outdoor apparel brand The North Face has become the best-known company yet to commit to an advertising boycott of Facebook in light of the social media platform's handling of misinformation and hate speech — a move that could open the door for other brands to do the same.
The brand's decision responds to a pressure campaign by top civil rights groups, including the NAACP and the Anti-Defamation League, known as #StopHateForProfit, which on Wednesday began calling for advertisers to suspend their marketing on Facebook in the month of July.
"We're in," The North Face tweeted. "We're out @Facebook #StopHateForProfit."
Hours later, outdoor equipment retailer REI said it will join the boycott.
[...] The activists demanding change face an enormously ambitious task. Facebook is the second-largest player in US digital marketing after Google, and last year generated $69.7 billion from advertising worldwide.
(Score: 1, Troll) by SomeGuy on Monday June 22 2020, @10:36PM (17 children)
Well, this slope is almost straight down, but lets roll with it for for the moment.
Facebook is racist. Take it out back next to the confederate monuments and smash it to bits.
(Score: 1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 22 2020, @10:48PM (15 children)
The problem I see is that Facebook _promotes_ division of people, just one of those methods/labels is racism. The whole stinking mess called Social Media has to be done away with. Take the NZ shooting - LIVE on FB, and zero consequences for FB. Comrade Jacinda should have blocked FB for 30 days plus a HUGE fine. Google's "do no evil" has undergone a 180 and this too has to be dismantled along with Facebook.
What I see is that people get along just fine, and then the media (in general) throw an incendiary article/story and ignite division. The news sites are just as guilty as FB at this point. Journalism is supposed to be: here are the unbiased facts, now YOU decide. But people are lazy - please do the thinking for us, we want 20 second bites of ready-to-go opinions. And so society falls apart. Now, if you just voice some middle-of-the-road "common" sense, you are labelled 'racist' in seconds, attacked online. This has got to stop.
My 10c (my govt killed the 1c, 2c, then they came for the 5c... years ago)
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 22 2020, @11:28PM (2 children)
And replaced with what? Newspapers telling us how to think.
I hate social media as much as the next nerd, but I know banning it will mean they shut down Soylent and IRC first while Facebook gets exemptions.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by zeigerpuppy on Tuesday June 23 2020, @04:25AM
We could start with a federated service which isn't designed to manipulate sentiment.
Facebook is not a social network as much as its a tool of social manipulation.
"Connecting people" has virtue but it doesn't require a corporate overload sticking their noses in at every opportunity.
Check out Mastodon and Matrix, both have some legs and eventually a federated network will emerge that allows users to up their content and leave their provider if they don't like how they behave.
Until then.... Just Stop Using Facebook
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 23 2020, @06:32AM
I was thinking of SM companies where they have share listed or speculator "investor" backing. The second profits or Wall St are involved, the rubbish plays off. Same problem with for profit media (or for agenda media*). This damage has been going on for decades. Hitler understood this and Goebbels was his propaganda and media man. Today's media silently take a cue from those roots.
* like National Geographic.... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RuFKpaV_jjo [youtube.com] (Afghan Girl, 1984)
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 22 2020, @11:49PM (7 children)
Obviously not written by a black person who has lost sons to police violence.
(Score: 2, Troll) by system32 on Tuesday June 23 2020, @08:23AM (6 children)
Should we... Should we tell him about the much larger problem of black on black violence? Oh right, nevermind, doesn't fit the narrative... Sorry, forget the kids that were murdered in drive-by shootings over the last week...CNN must have forgot to mention that.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 23 2020, @09:28AM
What makes you think he's not aware of that? Isn't people-on-people violence exactly what you'd expect if law enforcement fails to protect?
(Score: 3, Informative) by PiMuNu on Tuesday June 23 2020, @02:21PM (3 children)
There is a huge moral difference between a civilian committing violence and a police officer.
Police officers have special powers in law, granted under the assumption that they will be used to "protect and serve".
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 23 2020, @02:36PM (2 children)
There is absolutely no moral difference. The difference is entirely legal.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 23 2020, @03:05PM
That is exactly the difference he is talking about.
When a citizen kills someone it is murder, manslaugher, or at least criminal negligence.
When a cop does it, it is an accident, or completely justified.
The law enforcers should be held to a higher standard, not a lower one, they are the ones with the training.
(Score: 2) by PiMuNu on Wednesday June 24 2020, @12:25PM
No, I think there is a moral difference. A police officer has taken a vow to "protect and serve" or some such, whereas a civilian has not.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 24 2020, @03:27AM
Only if you're a racist idiot trying to pretend you're just all about the facts.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by PartTimeZombie on Monday June 22 2020, @11:58PM (3 children)
"Comrade" Jacinda does not have that power, because we have this thing called "rule of law", you may have heard of it?
I don't want the PM to levy fines and neither do you, if you go and have a wee think about that idea.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 23 2020, @06:54AM (2 children)
Well then, at minimum, the MoJ have 100% failed in their role. Some legal process should have kicked off instantly after 15/3/19. In the end its the failings of the NZ Police on issuing gun licenses without proper checking that had this end result.... and the Jacinda-driven knee-jerk afterwards taking guns from legitimate owners.
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Wednesday June 24 2020, @12:31AM
You may be confused about how any of that works.
is not how the rule of law works. There is no "process" for any of that.
Also, how did you jump to a completely different topic like that?
Also, my neighbour still owns both his guns, Jacinda didn't come over and take them from him at all.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday June 24 2020, @02:13AM
Given what you wrote, that sounds like the ideal outcome.
Why? Should New Zealand reshuffle their laws every time some evil and/or idiotic person does something? I'll warn you, even in a relatively smart place like New Zealand, that's going to happen a lot.
and the Jacinda-driven knee-jerk afterwards taking guns from legitimate owners.
Keep in mind who was a legitimate firearm owner before he started shooting people! This precrime stuff is hard!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 22 2020, @11:31PM
https://www.israelhayom.com/opinions/the-true-face-of-authoritarian-threat/ [israelhayom.com]